What kind of time frame were they testing over? Not seeing any significant burn in means something completely different if they’re testing for one year versus ten, especially for people who don’t like replacing things that aren’t totally unusable yet.
It’s rare that English children who learn Spanish as the first foreign language that they’re exposed to. If their parents are immigrants, then it’ll likely be their parents’ mother tongue(s), and if they’re not, they’ll likely be taught some French before any Spanish. That can then lead to a habit of saying any foreign word with a French accent.
Also, England has strong regional variations in accent, so you might be hearing people say exactly the same vowel sounds as they’d use when speaking English, but those vowel sounds might be totally different to how you’re expecting that they’d speak English.
He might just have digestive issues and really good balance. Maybe a hovercraft skirt sewn onto the seat of his pants.
It’s probably worth mentioning in the summary that:
The sensationalised criticism sounds a lot dumber than the real criticism, and is much easier for people scrolling past to dismiss as nonsense and just scroll past.
It might also be completely unusable if it’s going to be touched by human hands, as hands get sweaty, and sweat is salty water.
Obviously, most people don’t replace their TV every year, so it was years after new sales were mostly LCDs that most people had LCDs, but companies making content like to be sure it looks good with the latest screens.
It’s worth taking a moment to remember that PETA, despite not being perfect, has been the victim of a smear campaign by the meat industry, so every mistake they make is amplified and every policy that isn’t immediately obviously sensible is reframed to look as bad as possible. E.g. you’ll often see that PETA-run dog shelters euthanise a lot more dogs than the average shelter, leaving out the context that plenty of no-kill shelters send all their sick dogs to a PETA shelter to be euthanised so they can claim not to have killed the dog, but that skews the statistics. You’ll also see news reports about PETA abducting a pet dog and killing it, which leave out the fact that it’s one past event being reported over and over as if it’s news each time, and that it was a much more nuanced situation than most people think. A pet dog’s collar fell off while it was unattended playing with a pack of strays, which animal control had been dispatched to round up, and then sent to PETA to be put down, then a series of clerical errors meant animal control told the owners they never had the dog and told PETA that the dog had already been held waiting to see if an owner claimed it, so it was already dead by the time the owners tracked down where it had really ended up.
I think you might have misjudged when LCDs became common as by the end of 2004, when Halo 2 released, LCD TVs were already a reasonable fraction of new TV sales, and in parts of the world, it was only a few months later that LCD TVs became the majority. For PC monitors, the switch came earlier, so it was clear CRTs were on the way out while the game was being developed. If they hadn’t expected a significant number of players to use an LCD and tweaked the game as much as necessary to ensure that was fine, it would have been foolish
That’s what’s keeping the lights on. If they sunk the extra billions into making their discrete cards genuinely superior to Nvidia’s (which already means taking it for granted that selling comparable products for less money makes them knockoff rather than superior), then Nvidia could stop them recouping the development costs by eating into their own margins to drop their prices. Over the last decade or two, ATi/AMD’s big gambles have mostly not paid off, whereas Nvidia’s have, so AMD can’t afford to take big risks, and the semi-custom part of the business is huge long-term orders that mean guaranteed profit.
Unless you’re making thousands of something, an ESP32 is cheap enough that it shouldn’t matter whether or not it’s overkill. Getting something simpler will only save you a few pennies unless you’re overspending as ESP32 breakout boards are available for less than £2.
The power draw will be a problem, though, unless you disable WiFi. They’re not really button-cell-friendly.
There have been times it’s been used against a whole carful of people, and cars are bigger than seven inches.
Even in 2000, I feel like they should have been able to compromise, e.g. by doing his sclera and covering up breathing holes on the computer, but still having the rest be makeup, prosthetics and a costume.
It’s producing much less oil than it would have been without these strikes. At the minimum, it’s costing Russia a lot of money, and defensive wars are won by making it too expensive for the invaders to keep going.
They didn’t end up building a utopia, so must have made some kind of a mistake along the way.
ECC genuinely is the only check against memory bitflips in a typical system. Obviously, there’s other stuff that gets used in safety-critical or radiation-hardened systems, but those aren’t typical. Most software is written assuming that memory errors never happen, and checksumming is only used when there’s a network transfer or, less commonly, when data’s at rest on a hard drive or SSD for a long time (but most people are still running a filesystem with no redundancy beyond journaling, which is really meant for things like unexpected power loss).
There are things that mitigate the impact of memory errors on devices that can’t detect and correct them, but they’re not redundancies. They don’t keep everything working when a failure happens, instead just isolating a problem to a single process so you don’t lose unsaved work in other applications etc… The main things they’re designed to protect against are software bugs and malicious actors, not memory errors, it just happens to be the case that they work on other things, too.
Also, it looks like some of the confusion is because of a typo in my original comment where I said unrecoverable instead of recoverable. The figures that are around 10% per year are in the CE column, which is the correctable errors, i.e. a single bit that ECC puts right. The figures for unrecoverable/uncorrectable errors are in the UE column, and they’re around 1%. It’s therefore the 10% figure that’s relevant to consumer devices without ECC, with no need to extrapolate how many single bit flips would need to happen to cause 10% of machines to experience double bit flips.
It wasn’t originally my claim - I replied to your comment as I was scrolling past because it had a pair of sentences that seemed dodgy, so I clicked the link it cited as a source, and replied when the link didn’t support the claim.
Specifically, I’m referring to
A single bit flipped by a gamma ray will not cause any sort of issue in any modern computer. I cannot overstate how often this and other memory errors happen.
This just isn’t correct:
That study doesn’t seem to support the point you’re trying to use it to support. First it’s talking about machines with error correcting RAM, which most consumer devices don’t have. The whole point of error correcting RAM is that it tolerates a single bit flip in a memory cell and can detect a second one and, e.g. trigger a shutdown rather than the computer just doing what the now-incorrect value tells it to (which might be crashing, might be emitting an incorrect result, or might be something benign). Consumer devices don’t have this protection (until DDR5, which can fix a single bit flip, but won’t detect a second, so it can still trigger misbehaviour). Also, the data in the tables gives figures around 10% for the chance of an individual device experiencing an unrecoverable error per year, which isn’t really that often, especially given that most software is buggy enough that you’d be lucky to use it for a year with only a 10% chance of it doing something wrong.
There’s no rule saying cartoon animals that only wear clothes on their torso aren’t allowed on the fediverse.
Much more straightforward in British English where d and t are more distinct
The hypothetical says it only goes on for five years, so unless you’re already pretty old, you don’t need to worry about extra risks due to being old. It also said you can get sick days. If you get into trouble, it’s going to be from the ocean rather than because you were unfit for the ocean that day.